The High Court clarified that, following *Pranay Sethi*, amounts awarded under ‘conventional heads’ (such as loss of consortium, loss of estate, and funeral expenses) in motor accident compensation must be enhanced by 10% every three years from 2017 onward. This judgment upholds and applies the Supreme Court’s direction, ensuring consistency in future awards by Chhattisgarh courts and providing binding authority for Motor Accident Claims Tribunals in the state.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | MAC/1060/2022 of SMT. RITA DEVI Vs SANTOSH KUMAR BANJARE |
| CNR | CGHC010312382022 |
| Date of Registration | 29-09-2022 |
| Decision Date | 31-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED (in part); compensation enhanced |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY K. AGRAWAL |
| Court | High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur |
| Bench | Single judge (Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal) |
| Precedent Value | Binding on courts and tribunals within Chhattisgarh |
| Overrules / Affirms | Applies and affirms the principle from National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680 |
| Type of Law | Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Compensation in accidental death claims |
| Questions of Law | Whether sums awarded under other conventional heads (loss of consortium, loss of estate, funeral expenses) should be enhanced by 10% every three years post-2017 as per Pranay Sethi? |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that, as established by the Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi, conventional heads in motor accident compensation are liable to periodic enhancement by 10% every three years, with 2017 as the base year. The judgment confirmed that, as of the date of the claim, a 20% enhancement must be applied to the amounts for loss of consortium, loss of estate, and funeral expenses, in line with prevailing Supreme Court directions. The principle is mandatory and binding on tribunals within the state. The Court computed and awarded the enhanced compensation accordingly. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | The Supreme Court’s pronouncement in Pranay Sethi on periodic upward revision in compensation under conventional heads forms the sole basis of the judgment’s enhanced award. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The claimants filed an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking enhancement of compensation for the accidental death of Ravindra Kumar Prajapati, who worked as a driver and was aged about 45 years at the time of death. The Claims Tribunal awarded Rs. 14,89,341/-, and the appellants argued for increased compensation in line with Supreme Court directions on escalation of conventional heads. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All Motor Accident Claims Tribunals and lower courts within the State of Chhattisgarh |
| Persuasive For | Motor Accident Claims Tribunals and High Courts in other jurisdictions in the absence of contrary precedent |
| Follows | National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680 |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The Chhattisgarh High Court has expressly applied the formula of 10% enhancement every three years for conventional heads, with 2017 as the base year, as per the Supreme Court’s directions in Pranay Sethi.
- Lawyers must calculate current permissible amounts for loss of consortium, loss of estate, and funeral expenses with the appropriate percentage enhancement based on the claim date.
- The ruling provides a clear, binding standard for all future motor accident compensation claims in Chhattisgarh regarding periodic revision of amounts under conventional heads.
- In appeals or claim petitions, quoting this ruling will ensure that the enhanced sums are uniformly granted by Claims Tribunals.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
The Court first examined the award rendered by the Tribunal regarding the heads of compensation, especially ‘other conventional heads’. The appellants argued, with reference to the Supreme Court’s judgment in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017), that amounts under these heads are to be increased by 10% every three years from the 2017 base year. The Court accepted this submission and noted the Tribunal had awarded Rs. 2,53,000/- under these heads. The Court then applied the mandated 20% enhancement (two cycles of 10% from 2017 to 2023), leading to an increased sum of Rs. 3,03,600/-. This exact calculation was demonstrated, the figures updated, and the final compensation was re-assessed. The High Court directed payment of the enhanced sum with interest and affirmed that the rest of the Tribunal’s award conditions would remain unchanged. Throughout, the Court’s reasoning was anchored exclusively in the binding precedent of Pranay Sethi.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellants/Claimants):
- Submitted that, as per the Supreme Court’s ruling in Pranay Sethi, there should be a 10% increase in the sums awarded under other conventional heads every three years, meaning a 20% hike for awards made after six years from 2017.
- Sought enhancement of compensation based on this principle.
Respondent No. 3 (Insurance Company):
- Supported the original award, contending that the compensation granted by the Claims Tribunal was just and did not require any modification.
Factual Background
The appellants, being legal heirs of Ravindra Kumar Prajapati (a driver aged 45 years who died in a motor accident), filed a claim under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking enhanced compensation for accidental death. The Claims Tribunal had awarded Rs. 14,89,341/-. Dissatisfied with the quantum, the appellants appealed for enhancement in accordance with the Supreme Court’s guidance on conventional heads, as laid down in Pranay Sethi.
Statutory Analysis
The judgment is based on the interpretation and application of Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which deals with appeals against awards of Claims Tribunals. The Court specifically engaged with Supreme Court guidelines (from 2017’s Pranay Sethi) concerning the periodical upward revision of compensation under “other conventional heads” (loss of consortium, loss of estate, and funeral expenses). The Court did not interpret the statute expansively, but followed the mandatory directions for fixed-sum revision provided by apex court precedent.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions were recorded in this single-judge decision.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural precedents, guidelines, or innovations were established in this judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment strictly follows Supreme Court precedent (Pranay Sethi) and applies it as binding law within the jurisdiction.